Christmas: A Mithrian Celebration (Subtopic: Origins of Christianity)

[Wolf]

Well, it's that time of year, everyone! I was doing some research into the early Church and no one was more surprised than I to discover that Athanasios was... actually not too far off in asserting that Christianity as we know it is largely a pagan religion in practice--with some ideological elements of "true" Christianity. So, I thought I'd start this topic and share my findings with the group--non-stakeholders in this discussion (e.g., Dante/SandChigger) may feel free to snigger and chortle as much as they wish.

Preliminary Findings: Many modern Christian images and practices are derived, nay, lifted wholesale from the Mithrian religion. Interestingly, however, I would not go so far to say that Christianity is merely Mithrianism cloaked in the cross: in terms of ideology, few, if any, actual Mithrian beliefs survive, and the modern religion is dominated by Semitic-origin beliefs.

Introduction to Mithrianism: A religion founded on the Italian peninsula in the early 2nd century A.D. (earliest recovered ruins dated to 104 A.D.) with ideological roots in Greek, Egyptian and Persian paganism. It was a "secret" religion: only males were members, worshipped in secret (often undeground), and rarely committed any names or ways to writing. As an unsurprising result, the religion is practically dead as of the 4th century. Its adherents were mainly the Roman elite: politicians, military officers and celebrities. Here's the breakdown: (1) Core beliefs: Mithras, the son of the sun (no kidding) is born from a rock (unclear symbolism) and sacrifices a bull (unclear symbolism); the bull's blood begins the universe anew. (2) Key associations: Osiris, the Egyptian god of resurrection, as well as the Mithrian contemporary Sol Invictus, (invincible sun) and/or Helios, the Greek sun god. (3) Practices: Mithras' birth was celebrated on December 25, the same day as the old Roman feast of Saturn. The feast purportedly lasted 12 days. Sunday (the day of the sun) is the Mithrian Sabbath. There were seven levels of initiation into the Mithrian cult, and adherents frequently took communal meals of wine and bread together. (4) Imagery: Mithras is almost always depicted as a warrior-king with rays of light shooting forth from this head; Mithrian temples would always backlight the rays on Mithras' alter to emphasize this.

Introduction to Christianity: A religion founded in the Levant in the early 1st century A.D. (records of Christ's crucifixion place his death ca. 30 A.D.) with ideological roots in Judaism. It was a religion of the poor, spreading throughout the entire Roman Empire. Originally, Christians were brutally oppressed by the state, however, by the time of Constantine I, most of the Roman underclass, as well as the rank-and-file Roman soldier, were Christian adherents. Breakdown: (1) Core beliefs: Jesus Christ, the son of God, born of a virgin, is ultimately betrayed by his followers, and slain on the cross. After three days, he rises from the dead, indicating that his sacrifice has saved mankind. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. (2) Key associations: Judaism, also Mithrianism, but that's the point of this post, so stay with me! (3) Practices: It's unclear when Jesus' birth and death were originally celebrated, but, currently, they are celebrated on the same day as the feast of Saturn and on the date commemorating the spring equinox. So, in terms of "true" Christian practices, all I got so far is the baptism. It's clear that that was almost certainly practiced by Jesus and his followers, as well even by 1st century Jews. Communal meals may also have played a role. Early Christians observed the traditional Sabbath, Friday evening to Saturday morning. (4) Imagery: the cross, Jesus is almost always depicted as either serene or suffering as he's crucified; the halo almost always surrounds his head.

Conclusion: Constantine I needed to unite a vast empire of pagan elites and Christian poor; he needed to absorb the Roman military into his political fold, which at that time was primarily Christian, but he couldn't lose the support of his upper-class pagan cronies. So, it's pretty clear he merged the two religions--as well as other pagan faiths. What's unclear is who got what from who: so far as I can tell, baptism is uniquely Christian, while the date of Christmas (note: Mithrian priests were even called "magi") and the timing of the Sabbath comes from Mithrianism (Constantine I issues an edict making Sunday the day of worship for all). On the other hand, both Christians and Mithrians seemed to use communal meals as a central practice; since Christianity came first, it's probable that they were the first to do communion, then again, the Mithrians may very well have leant the practice to the Christians. In terms of imagery, the "rays of the sun" probably are the origin of Christ's halo, though it could very well be coincidence. As for beleifs, however, Christianity almost certainly enveloped Mithrianism, and it's possible that some Mithrian beliefs (sacrifice of the bull, salvation of man, ultimate resurrection) might have been borrowed from Christianity in the first place just as they were borrowed from near-Eastern religions. Another fascinating parallel is the Mithrian preference for underground worship--almost perfectly mirroring Christian worship in Roman catacombs. This is almost certainly mere coincidence, however: Mithrians were wealthy elites who could afford to build missile-silo churches; Christians were being hunted for sport. The end of the story, however, is that Mithrianism dies out and Christianity is the dominant world religion. Some folks think this is because of the injection of a little paganism to make the Semitic medicine go down; I think it has more to do with the backing of the nominal ruler of the planet. What it leaves us all with today, however, is a little bit of a theological mess to work out!

So, what's the point? Just to wish you all a Merry Christmas and to begin an argument about whether or not we're celebrating a pagan holiday. :D Could. Not. Resist.

[arnoldo]

In addition, early christianity adapted greek philosophical thought (the Logos) and undoubtedly the Roman Catholic Church incorporated some so called pagan practices as well. Roger Pearse has info on this subject on his blog.

Christmas is coming, and with it comes the annual flood of stale old stories cynically designed to cast doubt on whether Christmas is a Christian festival, and eagerly believed by those who feel that way inclined.

The favourite “authority” for these folk is Wikipedia — once one of their friends has suitably amended it, of course.

I discovered this morning that one of these gentry had rewritten the summary of the article on Sol Invictus to tell various falsehoods about Sol Invictus being derived from Mithras. Charmingly, the fraudster had tried to put some substance into his claims by pasting verbatim chunks of text and scholarly references from the Mithras article — material written by me, and of no conceivable relevance to Sol Invictus.

Needless to say I deleted all this twaddle, but for how long?. . .

A new harvest of myths

[Wolf]

Pearse doesn't seem to be saying anything of substance, and there isn't enough information on that post for me even to glean what his point of view is, although, his empty rhetoric leads me to infer that he doesn't like to think that Christmas has any pagan associations. Furthermore, his disdain for Wikipedia leads me to believe that he's actually objectively incorrect. Wikipedia has an extremely robust peer-review process, and nothing but the most verfiable data survives long there. If he gets edited out a lot, that more likely than not means that he's wrong--at least, as far as I'm concerned. And especially for a popular, family-friendly article like "Christmas".

Well, in any case, it's a fact that December 25 was (is?) the feast of Saturn and the day of the birth of Mithras (one of Pearse's commenters alludes to this, though she doesn't seem to comprehend it). Modern-day Christmas is also celebrated on December 25. This becomes something of a legal question: in the absence of definitive proof that Jesus was born on December 25, we're left with the existing record to determine when the birth-date was... this leads us to infer pagan origins. There's nothing wrong with that--I don't think God really cares--but I also recall once hearing that there was an original celebration of Jesus' birth in the 1st century, that was later changed to December 25 following the Constantinian reforms (who was a Mithrian). I forgot what that date was. Would you mind looking it up for me? I have trains to catch.

[Edric O]

Introduction to Mithrianism: A religion founded on the Italian peninsula in the early 2nd century A.D. (earliest recovered ruins dated to 104 A.D.) with ideological roots in Greek, Egyptian and Persian paganism. It was a "secret" religion: only males were members, worshipped in secret (often undeground), and rarely committed any names or ways to writing. As an unsurprising result, the religion is practically dead as of the 4th century. Its adherents were mainly the Roman elite: politicians, military officers and celebrities. [...] There were seven levels of initiation into the Mithrian cult...

[c=#00dd00]Ah yes, the Scientology of the ancient world.[/c] :)

Preliminary Findings: Many modern Christian images and practices are derived, nay, lifted wholesale from the Mithrian religion.

[c=#00dd00]Correlation is not causation. How do you know Christians borrowed from Mithrians and not the other way around? And there's also the possibility that both religions borrowed from a third source, as well as the possibility of simple coincidence (Christmas is very near the winter solstice; practically all religions originating in temperate or mediterranean climates celebrate something around this time of year).[/c]

[Mithrian] adherents frequently took communal meals of wine and bread together.

[c=#00dd00]The Christian practice of Communion (or "the Lord's Supper") is explicitly mentioned in the oldest surviving Christian texts - St. Paul's letters. As such, it clearly predates the earliest records of Mithrianism.[/c]

So, what's the point? Just to wish you all a Merry Christmas and to begin an argument about whether or not we're celebrating a pagan holiday. :D Could. Not. Resist.

[c=#00dd00]Come now, Wolf, of course we are celebrating a pagan holiday. But it's not because of the connection to the birth of Mithras or Saturnalia. It's because of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, raindeer and elves (!), the dominant role of winter imagery (rather than Near Eastern imagery), and of course the fact that the holiday has been so thoroughly commercialized.

Modern Christmas, as celebrated in the West, has been almost entirely taken over by the practices of Germanic paganism (although the core message is still Christian).[/c]

Furthermore, his disdain for Wikipedia leads me to believe that he's actually objectively incorrect. Wikipedia has an extremely robust peer-review process, and nothing but the most verfiable data survives long there. If he gets edited out a lot, that more likely than not means that he's wrong--at least, as far as I'm concerned. And especially for a popular, family-friendly article like "Christmas".

[c=#00dd00]Verifiability is not the same as neutrality or accuracy. I've seen Wikipedia articles that were extensively researched and supported by over a hundred citations - while still being horribly biased and misleading, because all the sources were from one side of a debate, and the other side was either presented as a strawman or entirely left out. In short, Wikipedia rarely contains explicit falsehoods, but often contains lies by ommission.

However, that does not seem to be the case here. As you said, the article on Christmas is extremely popular, and for that reason all sides are represented. I'm just pointing out that there is good reason to distrust Wikipedia in general.

Going back on topic: I pretty much agree with your conclusion, Wolf. Christianity borrowed some of the trappings of pagan religions (including Mithrianism) in order to become more palatable to Roman pagans. Nothing wrong with that. It's the doctrine that really matters, not the symbols used to represent it.[/c]

[arnoldo]

. . .. There's nothing wrong with that--I don't think God really cares--but I also recall once hearing that there was an original celebration of Jesus' birth in the 1st century, that was later changed to December 25 following the Constantinian reforms (who was a Mithrian). I forgot what that date was. Would you mind looking it up for me? I have trains to catch.

I suppose it's possible that Constantine changed the celebration to December 25 to coincide with other pagan holidays/winter solstice, etc. I've skimmed through the book Roger Pearse linked in his blog entitled, Towards the Origins of Christmas by Susan K Roll and found the following information regarding Constantine.

The introduction of the Christmas feast in Constantinople coincided chronological with the definitive repudiation of later Arianism as the dominant Christian doctrinal movement, much as the Roman feast could have originated broadly in the Nicene period, apart from the evidence which would tend to push it further back. This fact might provide a convenient parallel for scholars who argue that the Roman feast of Christmas was introduced in the Nicene period, that is, sometime between 324 and 335 C.C. However, extending the argument for the Roman origins of Christmas would be predicated upon several other contributing arguments which cast doubt upon the entire enterprise, namely the personal role Constantine in the introducing a feast as a means of enshrining a doctrinal point for political ends. . . and the question of whether Christmas was already known in north Africa before the Donatist split in 311, to cite the most evident arguments. Striking parallels in themselves do not prove causality.

Toward the origins of Christmas

By Susan K. Roll

If Constantine was seeking to embrace a religion which would unite an empire, Christianity, given it's many schisms seemed to be a poor choice. However, this book does explore scholarly arguments that the festival of Christmas may've been promoted by Constantine primarily to counter various christian heresies and hopefully unite his empire.

[ErasOmnius]

Good Job, Wolf!

Is this not the first time you and I agree almost 100%?

I do not celebrate Christmas.

But I do meditate time to time on the fact that Creator/Son of God left the throne of the universe, to be born a human. An oppressed Jew, born in a barn, amongst manure and animals.

Thanks.

[arnoldo]

[c=#00dd00] . . Going back on topic: I pretty much agree with your conclusion, Wolf. Christianity borrowed some of the trappings of pagan religions (including Mithrianism) in order to become more palatable to Roman pagans. Nothing wrong with that. It's the doctrine that really matters, not the symbols used to represent it.[/c]

Well said. In addition to spreading westward, early christianity traveled eastward towards India all the way to China and undoubtedly used indigenous symbols. The following use of the Buddha and lotus by Nestorian Christians in China illustrate this concept nicely.

[athanasios]

Good research Wolf.

Just a few points:

Xmas were once banned in the States.

Angels announced the birth of Jesus to shepherds. Unless in Jesus' time there was global warming, which definitely you will reject ;-) , shepherds wouldn't be out in the cold or even snow at night. And nowhere mention of a specific date of birth of Jesus or early Christians celebrating it.

Constantine worshiped the Sun so he merged what the masses believed with that of the elite and His concept of religion.

Sometimes God really cares. Saturnalia was a festival for Satan-at least from the Christian side of view.

Now who borrowed from whom is a big story. Ancient Greek religion had 'mysteries'. Those were known to the elite only and lost today. Still if we go back in time we find that many religious practices are common in most nations.

For example human sacrifices, which were later replaced with animal sacrifices (more civilized approach), to cover our sins.

Germans are the common suspects Edric O. The word is Semitic : g.r.m. means I commit crimes, pillage. And even today they hold true to their name. Forgive my going out of topic but we are suffering here in Greece from them. They still own money to us (the forced loan they took from the National Bank of Greece is still not payed back) and are continuing to pillage our wealth.

[Wolf]

Wow, this got popular. Okay, let me try to hit everyone at once:

Edric: (1) The reason I can't definitively attribute a set of imagery or a particular practice to one or the other religion mainly has to do with the fact that I'm not well versed in the history of this era. Furthermore, what "history" is easily accessible to me is suspect; no doubt Christian writers claim they were the progenitors, and vice versa, and given that we live in a Christian-dominated world, I'm approaching virtually every claim with a heightened level of skepticism. Since you are no doubt familiar with my normal levels of skepticism, I think it's fair to say that this is saying quite a lot. Essentially, the practice of baptism stood out to me as the only thing that I would, at the moment, say is definitively a Christian practice and not one that was borrowed from paganism. However, given Mithrianism's focus on blood imagery, it's a tough call for me to say whether they borrowed that from Christians, or that Christians borrowd it from them, or whether Christians had it, but it wasn't emphasized, etc. I do know that the December 25 date was almost certainly irrelevant to Christians before Constantine: based on old Hebrew sources for the time of Christ's birth, and translating for calendar differences (Nisan and all that), Christ was born in the September-October time of year.

(2) If you're sure about the veracity of the Pauline letters, then I have no reason to doubt you, and I'll add the eucharist to the list of uniquely Christian things.

(3) You think German paganism has more of an impact on Christianity? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that it never occurred to me--well, outside of Christmas trappings, of course. But when I look at the religion as a whole, I don't see much there... except perhaps for the tree imagery in the Garden of Eden, but I think it's pretty well-settled that they had that idea before the Germans.

(4) Wikipedia. I mean, I can sort of guess where you might feel that way, and certainly, just because a crowd of people says something right, that doesn't make it right, but, in my experience, Wikipedia is riding at like... 99.99% correct-ness. And a crowd of people with highly democratic, very rigid, frequently observed internal rules and arbitration mechanisms with a desire to cite sources that borders on the psychologically troubled... I mean, I hold it in very high regard. A guy saying that he keeps on editing a page, and it keeps on getting reverted, and moaning that the world will never know the truth doesn't move me.

Arnoldo: (1) Susan K. Roll is just as wrong as Pearse... only, here, I get the sense that her arguments are even more circular. I'd need to read more of her to really take her apart, but what I've seen so far doesn't make me think the whole "enterprise" (she's fond of that word) would be really worthwhile.

Athanasios: (1) Uh, I don't think you're right about the Germans... and your obvious dislike of them is a little... uh, well, uncomfortable?

(2) I also don't think Saturnalia is a Satanic festival... I've studied the origins of Satanic imagery in depth, and there's nothing in that feast that really corresponds with what I've read. Do you mean that, because it is pagan, it is therefore also Satanic? I disagree with that assertion, but if you have a convincing reason for why that is, I'd be happy to hear it.

That's it for now... man, I'm glad people are responding, but it doesn't seem to be the open-war I was really hoping for. :(

[ErasOmnius]

That's it for now... man, I'm glad people are responding, but it doesn't seem to be the open-war I was really hoping for. :(

And you say I'm a troll?

[Wolf]

Well, I was sure that that was a pretty obvious joke... I guess it wasn't. Well, maybe just not for you. So, I'll spell it out for you; I was kidding--what made it obvious was all the substantive, honest discussion and not troll-like behavior. At least, so I thought. You should use as a model.

[ErasOmnius]

Even though it is a holiday neither of us celebrate. Merry Christmas, Wolf.

[athanasios]

Sorry I cannot wish the same. But I wish all to be happy every day of their life.

[arnoldo]

Even if Christmas existed before Constantine it's plausible that the Emperor promoted it to bolster the Nicean flavor of Christianity. For example, certain gnostics who denied the physical incarnation of Christ(Christ was a spirit which appeared to be human), so called heretics who held the adoptionist view on Christ (did not become divine until baptism) and other s would be undermined by the widespread celebration of Christmas. Thus, the celebration of the physical and divine birth of Christ would strengthen the position Constantine favored and weaken the theological position of those which opposed him.